Observational studyEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging2025
High-risk plaques in non-culprit lesions and clinical outcome after NSTEMI vs. STEMI.
Observational study in European heart journal. Cardiovascular Imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03857971 (Identification of Risk Factors for Acute Coronary Events by Optical Coherence Tomography After STEMI and NSTEMI in Patients With Residual Non-flow Limiting Lesions The 'PECTUS-obs' Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Identification of Risk Factors for Acute Coronary Events by Optical Coherence Tomography After STEMI and NSTEMI in Patients With Residual Non-flow Limiting Lesions The 'PECTUS-obs' Trial (Observational Cohort)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: A Heterogeneous Syndrome with Evolving Management-A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Development of a MACE risk prediction model based on CCTA-derived quantitative parameters: a proof-of-concept study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Nomogram for predicting the severity of high-risk plaques in acute coronary syndrome.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsComplete non-culprit (NC) revascularisation may help reduce recurrent events after non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), especially if NC lesions would harbour high-risk plaque (HRP) features similar to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This study aimed to assess differences in fractional flow reserve (FFR)-negative NC plaque morphology in patients presenting with NSTEMI vs. STEMI and assess the association of HRP morphology and clinical outcome. METHODS AND
resultsIn the prospective PECTUS-obs study, 438 patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) underwent optical coherence tomography (OCT) of all FFR-negative intermediate NC lesions. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal MI or unplanned revascularisation) at 2-year follow-up. Four hundred and twenty patients had at least one analysable OCT, including 203 (48.3%) with NSTEMI and 217 (51.7%) with STEMI. The prevalence of HRPs, including thin-cap fibroatheromas, plaque rupture, and thrombus, was comparable between groups. MACE occurred in 29 (14.3%) NSTEMI patients and 16 (7.4%) STEMI patients (Puni-variable = 0.025 and Pmulti-variable = 0.270). Incidence of MACE was numerically higher among patients with HRP, irrespective of the clinical presentation at index (Pinteraction = 0.684). Among HRP criteria, plaque rupture was associated with MACE in both NSTEMI (P < 0.001) and STEMI (P = 0.020).
conclusionPresence of NC HRP is comparable between NSTEMI and STEMI and leads to numerically higher event rates in both. These results call for additional research on complete revascularisation in NSTEMI and treatment of HRP. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT03857971.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.